Allahabad Court January 1921 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Firm of Sheikh Ghafoor Bakhsh and Sons, Proprietors of Abdul Ulai Pres ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.394
1. This is an appeal by the defendants arising out of a suit for damages for infringement of copyright and for an injection. The plaintiffs are the sons of one Babu Pyare Lal, M.R.A.S, the author of the book styled English Teacher, hoth Urdu and Hindi editions of which were published by the Vidya Sagar Depot, Aligarh. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that Babu Pyare Lal was the owner of the oopyright in the said book and the various editions of this book were registered under sections 18 and 19 of the Press and Reinstitution of Books Act (XXV of 1867), the Act then in force, that their father the said Babu Pyare Lal died on the 15th of June 1917, that the plaintiffs were his heirs and as non entitled to all the right, that he had in the aforesaid book, that the firm of the defendants, who are publishers of school books, copied largely from the 'English Teacher' referred to above and published a book named 'English Teacher with Letter Writer', following the same arrangement as that o...
Lala Madho Prasad and ors. Vs. Musammat Draupadi Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-06-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.417
Piggott, J.1 This is a second appeal by a decree--holder. There are two connected cases but it is admitted that the facts are identical and that the same decision will govern both appeals. The decree under execution is an old one, of the 14th of February 1911, and it must be conceded to the appellant that his case is a hard on a and that he has bean badly obstructed in the execution of his decree. As long ago as the month of May 1912, he attached certain landed property in execution of the decree, Objection was taken by one Lakhmi Narain, that the property belonged to him and not to the judgment debtor. The objection was disallowed by an order of the 28th of September 1912. On the 16th of November 1912 the objector filed a regular suit, asking for a declaration that the property in question was his and was not liable for sale in execution of the decree. He asked the Trial Court to issue an injunction restraining the decree--holder from bringing the property to sale pending the executio...
Man Kunwar Vs. Dilip Singh,
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR43All389
Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ.1. In his appeal arises out of a suit for possession and mesne profits brought under the following circumstances. The property in dispute belonged to one Jiraj Singh, a Jat by case, who died in December, 1909, leaving him surviving a widow, Musammat Indo, and a daughter, Man Kunwar, who is the plaintiff in this case. His widow, Musammat Indo, soon after died in the beginning of 1910. In March, 1910, an application was put in on behalf of Musammat Man Kunwar for mutation of names in place of that of her deceased father. On the same date an application was put in on behalf of the defendant Dalip Singh and his brother Jhandu to have their names mutated in place of that of their deceased father, Sis Ram, who had died on or about the same time as Jiraj. Later on an objection was preferred on behalf of Dalip Singh to the entry of the name of Musammat Man Kunwar in respect of the property left by Jiraj, on the allegation that be, Dalip Singh, was th...
Rup NaraIn and ors. Vs. Sheo Prakash
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All134; (1921)ILR43All405
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. In the case out of which this appeal arises a final decree for sale was passed on the 26th of November, 1906. The plaintiff, although his claim had been decreed in full, appealed to the High Court by reason of certain remarks which the trial court had made in its judgment when passing the final decree. This Court held that no appeal lay under the circumstances, i.e., that it was not competent to the plaintiff to appeal against the decree in order to obtain a reconsideration of matters referred to in the judgment but not embodied in the decree. The appeal was dismissed on the 29th of June, 1908, and the question before us for determination is whether twelve years' period of limitation, referred to in Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, began to run from this latter date or from the 26th of November, 1906, the date of the final decree in the court of first instance. On the wording of article 182 of the schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, the decision of...
Rup NaraIn and ors. Vs. Sheo Prakash Alias Munnu Lal
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1921
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.129
1. In the case out of which this appeal arises a filial decree for sale was passed on the 26th of November 1806. The plaintiff, although his claim had been degreed in full, appealed to the High Court by reason of certain remarks which the Trial Court had made in its judgment when passing the final decree. This Court held that no appeal lay under the circumstances, i.e., that it was not competent to the plaintiff to appeal against the decree in order to obtain a reconsideration of matters referred to in the judgment but not embodied in the decree. The appeal was dismissed on the 29th of June 1903, and the question before us for determination is, whether twelve years period of limitation referred to in Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure began to run from this latter date or from the 16th of November 1906, the date of the final decree in the Court of first instance. On the wording of Article 182 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act the decision of the Court below, which hel...
Dalip Singh Vs. Musammat Man Kuar and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All398; 61Ind.Cas.156
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession and mesne profits brought under the following circumstances. The property in dispute belonged to one Jiraj Singh, at by caste, who died in December 1909 leaving him surviving a widow, Musammat Indo, and a daughter, Man Kunwar, who is the plaintiff in this case. His widow, Musammat Indo, soon after died in the beginning of 1910. In March 1910 an application was put in it behalf of Musammat Man Kunwar for mutation of names in place of that of her lea ceased father. On the same date an application was put in on behalf of the defendant Dalip Singh and his brother Jhandu to have their names mutated in place of that of their deceased father, Sis Ram, who had died on or about the same time as Jiraj. Later on, an objection was preferred on behalf of Dalip Singh to the entry of the name of Musammat Man Kunwar in respect of the property left by Jiraj on the allegation that he, Dalip Singh, was the adopted son of the deceased. This dispute was re...
Madho Prasad and ors. Vs. Draupadi Bibi
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1921
Reported in: AIR1921All99; (1921)ILR43All383
Piggott, J.1. This is a second appeal by, a decree-holder. There are two connected cases, but it is admitted that the facts are identical and that the same decision will govern both appeals. The decree under execution is an old one, of the 14th of February, 1911, and it must be concede to the appellant that his case is a hard one and that he has been badly obstructed in the execution of his decree. As long ago as the month of May, 1912, he attached certain lauded property in execution of the decree. Objection was taken by one Lachmi Narain, that the property belonged to him and not to the judgment-debtor. The objection was disallowed by an order of the 28th of September, 1912. On the 16th of November, 1912, the objector filed a regular suit, asking for a declaration that the property in question was his and was not liable for sale in execution of the decree. He asked the trial court to issue an injunction restraining the decree-holder from bringing the property to sale pending the exec...
Emperor Vs. Birju Marwari and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR44All157
Piggott and Walsh, JJ.1. In the Court of Session of Gorakhpur, as established under Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is a Sessions Judge and there are, or have been, also two Additional Sessions Judges. There was a criminal appeal filed by Birju and others against their conviction by a Magistrate. So far as the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure go any one of the Judges of the Court of Session competent to exercise jurisdiction in the said court could lawfully have heard that appeal. For the convenience of the administration the Local Government had limited the powers of the Second Additional Sessions Judge to the trial of cases or appeals made over to him by the Sessions Judge. This particular appeal was made over to the Second Additional Sessions Judge, but circumstances subsequently occurred which made it more convenient for the Sessions Judge to hear the appeal himself. After proper notice to the parties he proceeded to do so. The question has been raise...
Hakim NaziruddIn and anr. Vs. Musammat Achchi Begam
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.988
1. This appeal arises but of a suit for profits under Section 164 of the Tenancy Act by a co-sharer against a Lambardar. The suit was filed on the 29th of January 1919, that is to say, in 1326 Fasli. The plaintiff seated to be a co-sharer in 1322 Fasli. The profits claimed were the profits for the years 1319 to 1321 Fasli, On the face of it, it is obvious that the suit is time-barred. It is alleged, however, that this is not so because the collections were actually made in 1322 and 1323 Fasli for the years 1319--1321 Fasli. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit as barred by limitation and, in our opinion, rightly. The limitation governing a suit under Section 164 of the Tenancy Act is laid down in the Fourth Schedule, Group B, Serial Number 16, and is three years from the time when the share of the profits became payable. In Section 163 of the Act it is enacted that 'in the absence of any determination of the date by the Settlement Officer or of an express agreement among the c...
Haji HusaIn Baksh and anr. Vs. Firm Lachhman Das-mathra Das
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-04-1921
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.934
Piggott, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order superseding an. arbitration and directing the trial of the suit to proceed in the ordinary course. It is based upon a finding that there had been misconduct on the part of the arbitrator and so far complies with the provisions of paragraph 15 of the Second Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. The misconduct found against the arbitrator is that he had made 'private inquiries' into the subject matter of the dispute behind the banks of the parties, The learned Subordinate Judge relies upon decisions of this Court. in which it has been laid down that such action on the part of the arbitrator may amount to legal 'misconduct.' where it is not authorised by the agreement of reference. The case for the applicants is that in the present instance the parties had expressly authorised the arbitrator to arrive at a decision, either of his own personal knowledge, or in whatsoever manner he might think proper. On an examination of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »